Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday March 20, 2016 @02:17PM
from the bank-holiday dept.

An anonymous reader writes: BitQuick, a US-based Bitcoin trader has announced that it will shut down its platform for up to 2 to 4 weeks following a cyber-attack this week. The platform took this step because it has not yet identified how the hackers infiltrated their systems. It is unusual for companies to take down their systems for weeks, but after the recent Cryptsy and LoanBase hacks, the company is not willing to lose millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin. BitQuick announced clients of the incident, and 97% already withdrew their funds from the platform.

You thought wrong. They did not give any indicator that they'd be doing so. In fact, the only official words given about Timothy were, specifically, that he is a "real person" and that he was still there.

Why would you think that? Nobody official told you that. Nobody with any insider knowledge told you that. Nobody gave any good reasons (that I can think of) to think that. You concocted it in your head or listened to someone else who did. Then, rather than relying on the source of that, decided that it was

You should maybe do some more research on the subject.... What do you think bitcoin exchanges are for? Not only can you *easily* convert bitcoin to dollars.. you can quickly and easily convert it to many currencies all over the world.

Totally wrong. The original blocks mined by satoshi are still sitting there untouched. It'd be major news if they were moved.
This exchange is not one of the big ones. It'd be like some online webstore being hacked and claiming ecommerce is done with. There are arbitration services for bitcoin if both parties want to pay the fee. If you use some of the large pre-made bitcoin shopping cart systems tied to exchanges they also have ways to handle bad business practices. Bitcoin companies have done a lot to ma

The company is not yet sure what information the attacker stole, but it's certain that, due to its security system, no Bitcoins were stolen and that the attacker didn't get access to personal user details (driver's licenses, IDs, passports data, etc.) or their email addresses.
One day after the attack, the company says it emailed withdrawal instructions to all sellers, that all transactions have been processed, and that only 3% of the money it stored prior to the attack has remained unclaimed.

So they found a breach, shut down everything immediately, made arrangements to refund everyone's "money", actually refunded everyone's money, and are waiting to ensure they can start back up safely.

It does sound reasonable and professional. Is it? I'd like to think so.

At first blush, and compounded with other happenings of late, people are thinking/opining that the cracks in the façade are starting to appear. That's one way to look at it. However, it seems the cracks are being repaired as they appear and are less drastic than many of the naysayers speculated they would be. That is, of course, the least popular way to look at it - especially in these parts where anger, mockery, and indignant outra

After all of these high profile failures of various Bitcoin trading platforms, I'm thinking that Bitcoin really needs some sort of equivalent of FDIC or NCUA bank account insurance for deposits. The mainstream is really going to have trouble accepting Bitcoin as a currency when their account balances can magically disappear overnight with no legal recourse.

FDIC/NCUA requires that the banks know who they have deposits from and gave loans to, and BitCoin is designed to be anonymous. Lost BitCoins are like lost cash, and exchanges not lasting long prove how illiquid this "currency" is.

FDIC/NCUA requires that the banks know who they have deposits from and gave loans to, and BitCoin is designed to be anonymous. Lost BitCoins are like lost cash, and exchanges not lasting long prove how illiquid this "currency" is.

Bitcoin is NOT designed to be anonymous. It is psuedonymous. Why do people stick to this? I am not a miner nor a speculator. I am interested in cryptocurrencies because I think they -could- fundamentally change how economies work.Bitcoin stores details of every transaction forever. That is what the blockchain does! This puts all transactions out in the open for analysis. Sure you can mix between a billion wallets, but how long before someone detangles the block chain and sees that the guy who bout 2

Because the distinction between anonymous and psuedonymous is a meaningless distinction that gets trotted out

If you don't understand these words, they are indeed meaningless to you, but that doesn't mean they're meaningless for everybody.

Anonymous: no identity whatsoever attached to a transaction => they are fully untraceable

Pseudonymous: an "identity" is attached to the transaction, but this "identity" is not the real name of the person. However, this identity allows to see (given some amount of effort) which transactions belong together and were executed for the same "economic beneficiary". And if even one

However, this identity allows to see (given some amount of effort) which transactions belong together and were executed for the same "economic beneficiary".

Only if by "economic beneficiary" you mean a single Bitcoin address, and not an actual person. Reusing addresses is, of course, already considered poor security practice. If your pseudonymous identity is only attached to a single transaction, you might as well be anonymous. There is no real difference between "ephemeral identity used exactly once" and "no identity".

But people do make errors. Especially when trying to operate for a continued period of time.

If your pseudonymous identity is only attached to a single transaction, you might as well be anonymous. There is no real difference between "ephemeral identity used exactly once" and "no identity".

Except of course, that this ephemeral identity is used at least twice. Indeed, before being able to spend money from a wallet, you must first put money into that wallet, and there's your second transaction. Done from another walle

"economic beneficiary" is bank-speak for "person who really is behind a given account" (rather than the straw man or shell company's officer who showed up at the branch to open the account).

That's that I thought it meant, but the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't provide that information. It only includes Bitcoin addresses, which are generally ephemeral and used only for a single transaction output.

Except of course, that this ephemeral identity is used at least twice. Indeed, before being able to spend money from a wallet, you must first put money into that wallet, and there's your second transaction. Done from another wallet, which also had at least 2 transactions.

I assume that by "wallet" you actually mean "Bitcoin address", since a "wallet" is really just a collection of addresses and there is no way to observe which addresses make up a single wallet just by observing the blockchain.

I would count that as one use, not two, since the address is associated with a sin

This is the second time, in one thread, you've made some very backwards statements about BTC. BTC is not anonymous and was never intended to be. Your ID can be obfuscated, to some extent, but it is not (nor has it ever been) anonymous. Why would you think so?

I mean that as a question. I'd really like an answer. Who told you it was anonymous or even meant to be? Why did you listen to them? Did you check their credentials? Did you bother to look for yourself?

New York state set some rules for Bitcoin Exchanges that are being used by all the major bitcoin companies. Bitcoin exchanges, which allow people to store bitcoin on their servers, and/or can convert to USD, need all the same information on users that a bank does. They also have reporting to do. A few of the big ones have their own insurance.

Of course a user doesn't need to use an exchange. A user can easily use one of the many wallets that don't have a central company keeping everything for you. You can

"Bank Of America, a US-based banking conglomerate has announced that it will shut down its banks and all operations for up to 2 to 4 weeks following a cyber-attack this week. The bank took this step because it has not yet identified how the hackers infiltrated their systems."

No, of course not. And this is reason #67,866,371, 485 why I won't mess around with bitcoins. Banks can't get away with this kind of nonsense, but Bitcoin? Sure, why not?